Alpha Tauri and the FIA
Discussion
Forester1965 said:
There are a million and one clothing firms not associated with a current F1 team. Yet the FIA have chosen to enter a commercial contract with a firm owning two of them. No suggestion from me there's anything underhand going on, rather it's a tone deaf decision that creates an unnecessary nod to the possibility of bias. Would have been very easy to look elsewhere and avoid it altogether.
....and had they gone to M&S and stocked up on some Blue Harbour gear, people would have been suggesting that the FIA should proactively support those firms that have committed to the sport. I realise that speculation can be fun but I really think you're over thinking this one. There are potentially many situations where a racing penalty would fall to Red Bull's / AT's favour but the shirts the officials are wearing at the time is not one of them.
Bo_apex said:
Good article
But -
Post-season, Ferrari maintained that it had operated fully within the regulations throughout 2019, with Mattia Binotto explaining at a team event post-season the team was fully within the rules.
“We have never changed our way of operating the engine for the last part of the season, showing that our power unit is fully legal.”
Well they would say that, wouldn't they. Whatever happened to Binotto?But -
Post-season, Ferrari maintained that it had operated fully within the regulations throughout 2019, with Mattia Binotto explaining at a team event post-season the team was fully within the rules.
“We have never changed our way of operating the engine for the last part of the season, showing that our power unit is fully legal.”
StevieBee said:
....and had they gone to M&S and stocked up on some Blue Harbour gear, people would have been suggesting that the FIA should proactively support those firms that have committed to the sport.
I realise that speculation can be fun but I really think you're over thinking this one. There are potentially many situations where a racing penalty would fall to Red Bull's / AT's favour but the shirts the officials are wearing at the time is not one of them.
The point I was making was the appearance of bias, rather than the reality. Look at the thousands online shouting baseless accusations of corruption over it. I realise that speculation can be fun but I really think you're over thinking this one. There are potentially many situations where a racing penalty would fall to Red Bull's / AT's favour but the shirts the officials are wearing at the time is not one of them.
The FIA didn't need to enter a deal with one of the competitors. It could have chosen to avoid the risk of accusation. Mind you, the FIA is also stupid. Hey ho!
StevieBee said:
Forester1965 said:
There are a million and one clothing firms not associated with a current F1 team. Yet the FIA have chosen to enter a commercial contract with a firm owning two of them. No suggestion from me there's anything underhand going on, rather it's a tone deaf decision that creates an unnecessary nod to the possibility of bias. Would have been very easy to look elsewhere and avoid it altogether.
....and had they gone to M&S and stocked up on some Blue Harbour gear, people would have been suggesting that the FIA should proactively support those firms that have committed to the sport. I realise that speculation can be fun but I really think you're over thinking this one. There are potentially many situations where a racing penalty would fall to Red Bull's / AT's favour but the shirts the officials are wearing at the time is not one of them.
520TORQUES said:
Bo_apex said:
Good article
But -
Post-season, Ferrari maintained that it had operated fully within the regulations throughout 2019, with Mattia Binotto explaining at a team event post-season the team was fully within the rules.
“We have never changed our way of operating the engine for the last part of the season, showing that our power unit is fully legal.”
Well they would say that, wouldn't they. Whatever happened to Binotto?But -
Post-season, Ferrari maintained that it had operated fully within the regulations throughout 2019, with Mattia Binotto explaining at a team event post-season the team was fully within the rules.
“We have never changed our way of operating the engine for the last part of the season, showing that our power unit is fully legal.”
must be a scandal
Sandpit Steve said:
I think there’s a big difference, and certainly the appearance of a big difference, between the examples above, and seeing the race officials such as the RD, stewards, and scrutineers, walking around wearing the logos of a competitor.
It’s as much about how it looks, as any actual conflict of interest. How long before a commentator says something along the lines of “Well, we have the decision of the Red Bulll stewards, and it’s no penalty for Max. Not much of a surprise there”
Jesus fIt’s as much about how it looks, as any actual conflict of interest. How long before a commentator says something along the lines of “Well, we have the decision of the Red Bulll stewards, and it’s no penalty for Max. Not much of a surprise there”
Edited by Sandpit Steve on Tuesday 20th February 15:48
king christ!You mean like this...
honda_exige said:
There's only a difference for the mentally challenged. I wonder how the cost of some shirts and trousers compares to a fully funded safety car and transport.
'Here's the Mercedes safety car leading the Mercedes F1 car at a suspiciously good time for the Mercedes F1 team' said no one.
It's a bit dim to be suspect of one but not the other.
Or the cost of one of these:'Here's the Mercedes safety car leading the Mercedes F1 car at a suspiciously good time for the Mercedes F1 team' said no one.
It's a bit dim to be suspect of one but not the other.
Bas Jaski said:
honda_exige said:
There's only a difference for the mentally challenged. I wonder how the cost of some shirts and trousers compares to a fully funded safety car and transport.
'Here's the Mercedes safety car leading the Mercedes F1 car at a suspiciously good time for the Mercedes F1 team' said no one.
It's a bit dim to be suspect of one but not the other.
Or the cost of one of these:'Here's the Mercedes safety car leading the Mercedes F1 car at a suspiciously good time for the Mercedes F1 team' said no one.
It's a bit dim to be suspect of one but not the other.
Schrodinger's FIA to some on here; enough integrity that they can employ a team principal's wife with no suggestion of corruption but also bent enough that some shirts and trousers supplied by a subsidiary of a team suggests corruption.
Another week and a bit and we can start seeing race threads cluttered up with this stuff Forester1965 said:
There are a million and one clothing firms not associated with a current F1 team. Yet the FIA have chosen to enter a commercial contract with a firm owning two of them. No suggestion from me there's anything underhand going on, rather it's a tone deaf decision that creates an unnecessary nod to the possibility of bias. Would have been very easy to look elsewhere and avoid it altogether.
Why wouldn't they? To me it would be odd to use a clothing brand that had no motorsport connection.The fact that people think there would be bias because of a deal like this makes me very sad about the state of the world.
honda_exige said:
Or Toto's wife being on the FIA payroll!
Schrodinger's FIA to some on here; enough integrity that they can employ a team principal's wife with no suggestion of corruption but also bent enough that some shirts and trousers supplied by a subsidiary of a team suggests corruption.
Susie works for FOM, not the FIA.Schrodinger's FIA to some on here; enough integrity that they can employ a team principal's wife with no suggestion of corruption but also bent enough that some shirts and trousers supplied by a subsidiary of a team suggests corruption.
PhilAsia said:
StevieBee said:
Forester1965 said:
There are a million and one clothing firms not associated with a current F1 team. Yet the FIA have chosen to enter a commercial contract with a firm owning two of them. No suggestion from me there's anything underhand going on, rather it's a tone deaf decision that creates an unnecessary nod to the possibility of bias. Would have been very easy to look elsewhere and avoid it altogether.
....and had they gone to M&S and stocked up on some Blue Harbour gear, people would have been suggesting that the FIA should proactively support those firms that have committed to the sport. I realise that speculation can be fun but I really think you're over thinking this one. There are potentially many situations where a racing penalty would fall to Red Bull's / AT's favour but the shirts the officials are wearing at the time is not one of them.
520TORQUES said:
honda_exige said:
Or Toto's wife being on the FIA payroll!
Schrodinger's FIA to some on here; enough integrity that they can employ a team principal's wife with no suggestion of corruption but also bent enough that some shirts and trousers supplied by a subsidiary of a team suggests corruption.
Susie works for FOM, not the FIA.Schrodinger's FIA to some on here; enough integrity that they can employ a team principal's wife with no suggestion of corruption but also bent enough that some shirts and trousers supplied by a subsidiary of a team suggests corruption.
phil1979 said:
PhilAsia said:
StevieBee said:
Forester1965 said:
There are a million and one clothing firms not associated with a current F1 team. Yet the FIA have chosen to enter a commercial contract with a firm owning two of them. No suggestion from me there's anything underhand going on, rather it's a tone deaf decision that creates an unnecessary nod to the possibility of bias. Would have been very easy to look elsewhere and avoid it altogether.
....and had they gone to M&S and stocked up on some Blue Harbour gear, people would have been suggesting that the FIA should proactively support those firms that have committed to the sport. I realise that speculation can be fun but I really think you're over thinking this one. There are potentially many situations where a racing penalty would fall to Red Bull's / AT's favour but the shirts the officials are wearing at the time is not one of them.
...jury is out on Croft.honda_exige said:
520TORQUES said:
honda_exige said:
Or Toto's wife being on the FIA payroll!
Schrodinger's FIA to some on here; enough integrity that they can employ a team principal's wife with no suggestion of corruption but also bent enough that some shirts and trousers supplied by a subsidiary of a team suggests corruption.
Susie works for FOM, not the FIA.Schrodinger's FIA to some on here; enough integrity that they can employ a team principal's wife with no suggestion of corruption but also bent enough that some shirts and trousers supplied by a subsidiary of a team suggests corruption.
520TORQUES said:
honda_exige said:
520TORQUES said:
honda_exige said:
Or Toto's wife being on the FIA payroll!
Schrodinger's FIA to some on here; enough integrity that they can employ a team principal's wife with no suggestion of corruption but also bent enough that some shirts and trousers supplied by a subsidiary of a team suggests corruption.
Susie works for FOM, not the FIA.Schrodinger's FIA to some on here; enough integrity that they can employ a team principal's wife with no suggestion of corruption but also bent enough that some shirts and trousers supplied by a subsidiary of a team suggests corruption.
honda_exige said:
520TORQUES said:
honda_exige said:
520TORQUES said:
honda_exige said:
Or Toto's wife being on the FIA payroll!
Schrodinger's FIA to some on here; enough integrity that they can employ a team principal's wife with no suggestion of corruption but also bent enough that some shirts and trousers supplied by a subsidiary of a team suggests corruption.
Susie works for FOM, not the FIA.Schrodinger's FIA to some on here; enough integrity that they can employ a team principal's wife with no suggestion of corruption but also bent enough that some shirts and trousers supplied by a subsidiary of a team suggests corruption.
If we substitute her for Susie in your incorrect statement it reads
Or Shaila Ann Rao being on the FIA payroll!
An incorrect statement.
If you want to pull more recent conflicts of interests out of your arris, the most recent has happened January this year.
The FIA has appointed Tim Malyon as Sporting Director within the Single-Seater department.
Malyon will oversee all sporting matters including Race Director, the Remote Operations Centre (ROC) in Geneva, and will report to FIA Single-Seater Director Nikolas Tombazis.
The key role at the FIA for the coming season was working previously for Red Bull.
How do you like those apples?
MrBig said:
Sandpit Steve said:
I think there’s a big difference, and certainly the appearance of a big difference, between the examples above, and seeing the race officials such as the RD, stewards, and scrutineers, walking around wearing the logos of a competitor.
It’s as much about how it looks, as any actual conflict of interest. How long before a commentator says something along the lines of “Well, we have the decision of the Red Bulll stewards, and it’s no penalty for Max. Not much of a surprise there”
Jesus fIt’s as much about how it looks, as any actual conflict of interest. How long before a commentator says something along the lines of “Well, we have the decision of the Red Bulll stewards, and it’s no penalty for Max. Not much of a surprise there”
Edited by Sandpit Steve on Tuesday 20th February 15:48
king christ!You mean like this...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff